To completely change the subject, has anyone else wondered why they never put a warp drive on the saucer section of the E-D? Separating the saucer before a battle, and losing the stardrive would leave the saucer at the mercy of the attacking ship, which defeats the whole point of separating the saucer in the first place, which was to keep the civilians safe. They can build warp drives small enough for a shuttle craft, so why would they leave the saucer with such a glaring weakness do you think?

They say that in the Army, the women are mighty fine.They look like Phyllis Diller, and walk like Frankenstein.

Mark wrote:To completely change the subject, has anyone else wondered why they never put a warp drive on the saucer section of the E-D? Separating the saucer before a battle, and losing the stardrive would leave the saucer at the mercy of the attacking ship, which defeats the whole point of separating the saucer in the first place, which was to keep the civilians safe. They can build warp drives small enough for a shuttle craft, so why would they leave the saucer with such a glaring weakness do you think?

The TR-116 Everybody!

"All this has happened before --""But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."

Mark wrote:To completely change the subject, has anyone else wondered why they never put a warp drive on the saucer section of the E-D? Separating the saucer before a battle, and losing the stardrive would leave the saucer at the mercy of the attacking ship, which defeats the whole point of separating the saucer in the first place, which was to keep the civilians safe. They can build warp drives small enough for a shuttle craft, so why would they leave the saucer with such a glaring weakness do you think?

Lack of space due to needing an apartment sized quarters for everyone?

I have been toying with the idea of putting retractable nacelles on the sides of the saucer.

The saucer doesn't need to go Warp 9.6 but just fast enough to reach a starbase within a decent amount of time.

"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything﻿ with the sheer force of bullshit"

The question isn't nacelles, it's reactor. The GCS warp core runs, IIRC, straight down the connecting neck nearly to the bottom of the engineering hull. Where do you have that space available in the saucer?

"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later.""Of course! We never ask questions."

Mikey wrote:The question isn't nacelles, it's reactor. The GCS warp core runs, IIRC, straight down the connecting neck nearly to the bottom of the engineering hull. Where do you have that space available in the saucer?

Actually, according to the MSD it seems the warp core is only about 8-10 decks high in the engineering hull (see my bad MS Paint skills). Conceivably a smaller, limited capacity core could be fit in the saucer.

"All this has happened before --""But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."

I agree. Not because of a lack of space, as you could probably shoehorn one in (although what you'd have to take out to make this possible would have to be considered). The problem is that this is a GCS Batch 1 reactor you're talking about. The version that explodes if you so much as look at it sideways. Do you really want to lug more of them around than you have to, especially when one of them is in your supposed lifeboat?

Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

See Seafort's post, with emphasis on the word "shoehorn." The issue isn't the size of the core, it's the size of all the ancillary equipment that is integral to the M/AM reactor. Yes, the core is only as big as indicated on the MSD Sonic provided; but the majority of the whole engineering hull is control and diagnostic equipment, reactant storage (fairly important and rather large,) etc., etc. So...

#1 - Do you really want to keep huge tanks of the most volatile reactants known to man aboard the "safe" part of the ship, the part that's supposed to be an escape from danger?#2 - Even with a reduced-capacity core, all that other stuff needs to go with it. I think a lifeboat limited to impulse is a better option than a warp-capable lifeboat that can only take one-third of the complement.#3 - Even only discussing normal operations, what do you have to sacrifice to get that warp core et. al. into the saucer? Yes, the arboretum, patisserie, coffeehouse, and whatever other "space-hotel" crap can conceivably be dispensed with (but see below;*) but if it comes to taking out stellar cartography or research labs or somesuch, you've succeeded in negligibly improving an emergency function at the cost of sacrificing part of the ship's primary function.

* - Even though we all laugh at the type of amenities that a GCS apparently has, they were put there for a reason. We are talking about people - civvies, not just Academy-trained crew - who are going to be aboard for long stretches at a time. The people who designed the GCS were obviously not willing to dispense with those things, presumably for reasons that behavioral and competency research had shown them; therefore, binning those amenities isn't an option, even if you feel like sticking a powder keg spare core in the saucer.

"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later.""Of course! We never ask questions."

It doesn't have to be a full sized warp core. It could be a smallish one, perhaps in a pod directly connected to the warp core should it fail, it can be jettisoned entirely as a unit or completely removed. Range also doesn't have to be as large as the stardrive section since if the saucer is viewed as a giant lifeboat, it should have enough fuel for let's say 100 lightyears at a specified warp speed.

"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything﻿ with the sheer force of bullshit"